Exploring Deep Desires

At Traditional Christianity (and previous blogs) there have been posts and comments on a wide range of topics: sex, immorality, slavery, spanking, divorce, sex, philosophy, masculinity, femininity, rape, sex, dominance, submission, attraction, child custody, sex, marriage, hooking-up, race, modesty, Game, sex, Christianity, Puritanism, Catholicism, salvation, hedonism, civilization decline, economics, history and of course, SEX.

CL and I engaged in an email exchange exploring the correlations among some of these topics.  This was an example of open communication between a man and a woman and can be done in an honest way and without defensiveness and repression. (Obviously we are not condoning rape or slavery but merely discussing aspects that may reveal truths in human nature.)

Something that may sound strange on the surface may hide something perfectly normal and desirable.  Some things that have been repressed find an outlet on the fringe, where contrivances and fetishes give a means to express in a twisted way things that are simply written on our hearts.  Some desires of the heart have been repressed and suppressed in our culture, both in churches and in the secular world.

If we ever hope to change the state of the world, to help marriage and curb divorce, we need to explore to the roots of what is driving the current destruction of western civilization. In order to have any measure of success in this, we need to be able to discuss real issues in a frank way.  It is no secret that married Americans are, by and large, dissatisfied with their sex lives or lack thereof.

-

7man writes: I briefly checked out some websites: PostSecret, ConfessionPost, Secret-Confessions, and Taken-In-Hand.  It is amazing the secrets people keep – their secret desires, their infidelities and the messes they get into – that all lead to great unhappiness and discord in relationships.  Men and women are both quite dishonest with each other.

It is so much easier to be honest and share desires.  The longing that many women have to be dominated or spanked is revealed in some of the confessions.  It seems that many women stray when a man is not alpha enough and there is something in women that craves some rough treatment.  It is stronger than I realized and is difficult for most men to do. I didn’t know my desire to dominate a woman and I can only accept this in myself if I also am caring and compassionate, but at the same time I know that women are not as fragile and delicate as society and Christianity would have us believe.

It seems that many women fantasize about a man she loves turning her over his lap and giving her a bare ass spanking.  It would cause a nice red glow and she would feel the good sting and a burning heat would remain.  His arousal would be such that he would give her a good roguring next and both would delight in the knowledge that she would feel that good ache the next day.  Just imagine how she would delicately sit down, a slight wince crossing her face followed by a smile of satisfaction as she recalled getting a good “seeing to.”

This kind of emo-porn really gets a woman going.  She cannot help but become aroused by this thought.  Many a woman has wanted a man to do this to her for years but no man would do it.  This longing and lack of discussion of such things with her husband leaves her frustrated and then keeping desires secret can be corrosive to the relationship.  I am contemplating the deep desires of a woman to be taken and a man to take a woman and it is still somewhat new to me. Of course there are extreme things that go too far and most domination activity is more extreme and contrived than it should be.  A man treating a woman like a little girl and talking to her as if she were a child is unappealing and disturbing but represents the propensity of people to go to extremes in order to find an outlet for their desires.

Why shouldn’t a husband just spank a wife for fun, in a normal loving marriage of two adults without the D/s or Adult/child dynamics?  All this crap thrown in makes it seem perverse.  I’d rather just be a dominant man with a high quality woman engaging in some fun within boundaries.  The excess comes when the woman is treated like a child and the man assumes the responsibility for her behavior and becomes a domestic disciplinarian.  That quickly gets twisted and he no longer has a mature adult but a child.  Again it seems that no one has found the balance we are exploring; everything in the world either is tightly repressed or wantonly expressed to excess.  People contrive all kinds of reasons, scenarios and dynamics to meet a need they have but cannot articulate.

Long ago when the Vikings raided the British Isles, I doubt they treated women as children.  A Viking just grabbed a fine lass, ripped her clothing off, tamed her with a spanking and then rogured her hard.  I think it was a dominant man and a feisty woman engaging in adult activity and sexual conquest and I’m guessing that more than a few Vikings fell in love with the lass and more than one lass loved the Viking that dominated her.  Maybe modern people have lost the concept of conquest and then have only the adult/child dynamic to fall back on.  Maybe there is a fear of ownership of another person.  The man takes what he wants, the woman belongs to him (which is her desire), and he treats her as his property.

How does man treat his property?  He takes care of it and values it.  The modern view of historical slavery is one of domineering, control and abuse.  I think this is twisted.  Slavery was a primarily a business transaction and it seems likely that most owners treated their slaves fairly well and there was quite a bit of freedom of choice in life for a slave within the boundaries of ownership.  A man would not beat a slave for any whim because a demoralized and damaged slave could not work.  There was likely care for a slave’s emotions and life and any punishment was usually the imposition of a boundary.  Certainly sociopaths and psychopaths took this further, but that was probably the exception and not the rule. Their actions were not because of slavery or patriarchy, but because they were psychologically disturbed.

The modern view seems to dismiss the goodness and practicality of men.  History is viewed in an extreme manner through a modern, politically correct lens, and people of the past are considered bad and uncivilized.  At their core, people are much the same now as they were then and there will always be both good and bad people.  There were caring men of integrity that owned slaves, and dominated and spanked their wives.  They respected the property of other men and cared for those belonging to them.  Now it seems there is little respect for the property of others.  Many modern men show little qualm about roguring another man’s woman.  In the past, he would have been risking death and would have had some restraint and respect for what did not belong to him.

CL’s response:  Not much to add to this as it seems pretty on the mark. The parent-child dynamic is a turn-off.  It’s not really necessary.  Perhaps it gives people a kind of permission to do things they are otherwise too repressed to do. People need permission to do these things within a loving relationship without having to join the fringe and have a contrived reason for exploring these behaviours, which in the BDSM community appears to wind up with strange group activities that seem pretty degrading to all concerned (maybe I’m mischaracterising; this is only my impression from what I have read and seen on the Internet, which does tend to go to extremes).

7man’s response: I was thinking about this when I was praying before Mass.  It seems like this is how God loves us.

We want to belong to God.  We long for Him to be firm with us and treat us as His property but we still have the freedom to run away and turn our backs on Him (as a wife has the same freedom with a husband).  At times God will pursue and at other times He will wait patiently with open arms for our return, but if we run away, we are on our own.  We have rejected His protection, Grace and love and if we come to our senses, He may take us back under His terms, not ours.

This is why it is fair; we have free choice as men and women.  We enter into his Kingdom and with Grace, and freely choose the gift of salvation.  It is a yoke, but the burden is light because He bears it with us.  If a woman belongs to a man, he will freely give his life for her because he values her so highly.  He will bear the greater part of her personal burdens because this is what he was made for.  Just as with God, the man’s gift of himself and his willingness to die for her comes at a price and so she cannot dictate the terms or take this gift from him.

It is a fair bargain: his protection for her servitude and obedience; his life for her life. He is not to be a harsh uncaring taskmaster and both are expected to follow the rules they hash out together.  He holds himself to a higher standard than he holds her to and each keeps their end of the bargain (contract or covenant).  If his gift to her is not greater than the price she must pay then she would be a fool to accept his gift.  Is not the value we receive from God’s promise similar?

CL’s response: I wonder though… Why does a man want to sacrifice that much? Why would he want the “greater burden”, to give a gift that is worth more than the price paid?  I think when a man does this it is difficult for a woman to be disobedient.  If a man is giving so much, she wants to return that gift even if it seems an inadequate return.  Is that the reward for the man then?

7man’s response: There is such a simple answer.  He values her gift more than he values his life.  A man was made for this; it is the purpose of a man.  Just as Jesus loves us so much that He gave His life, so too can a man love a woman in the same way.

A man has broad shoulders and a strong back.  He can carry the greater burden and only asks that she wipe the sweat from his brow, to be a willing sexual partner, and to not berate him or nag him, which takes all the pleasure away from his serving her.

CL’s response: Well that seems to be a pretty sweet deal then.  Thinking of it this way leaves me kind of speechless.  A man values a woman’s gift more than his life?  Wow…. What can I say to that?

7man’s response:  This requires more maturity and introspection than most men and women have.  It takes two but when both the man and the woman understand this, she would be a fool if she didn’t say YES.

Image Credit

The Middle Way for Women

I have my first post up a Traditional Christianity. Go and check it out and join the always lively discussion over there!

It seems that most women aren’t too interested in the feelings of men on this. I posed the question, but it is largely ignored. The point is that dressing nicely for him outside the house also helps keep him from looking at other women, because he’s focussed on you. You’re helping him to not have lustful thoughts about other women, you’re keeping him interested in only you. It seems that by not doing these things for him, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I wonder why women seem to be so uninterested in pleasing men. This may be the topic for another post.

Here is the post as it appeared at TC.

This is my first post here. 7man planted a seed and I have nurtured it – it was a fruitful union and this is what we have procreated.

Have you noticed that single women dress to attract, then when she gets married, she dresses to minimize? A married woman dressing as if she were single, going on girls’ nights out, is not generally looked upon well, even if the stigma appears less than in times gone by, and most married women intuit this.

What are attracts men is simple but seems complex because it is counter-intuitive. Often a woman showing too much skin gives off a vibe of selfishness. Such intentional dress is often intimidating to men; the better quality betas often do not have the confidence to approach – or they simply don’t know how to approach such a woman except perhaps to ask, “How much?” Of course the alpha guys will approach her, but the good guys will think twice more often than not.

The women overly concerned with modesty often have a body language that is not attractive. Their posture often is such that they hide their curves. This is body insecurity, which is not an attractive trait. Often these women have the walking gait of a man. But even those seemingly unconcerned with modesty do this – I see women all the time dressed to the nines but walking like a man, slightly hunched even, with legs apart instead of one foot in front of the other. In this case, the woman who is modestly dressed yet carries herself well is going to attract more attention than the one showing a lot of skin but who doesn’t know how to carry herself in a feminine way.

This is the middle way. Wearing clothes that do not reveal too much but walking with confidence: shoulders back, breasts out, standing tall. Walking like a woman, one foot in front of the other, which causes her hips to sway even without heels. How many times do you see women hunched over with her arms pulled forward or crossed to disguise her breasts? This is not attractive. Rather, good posture, smiling, not wearing a lot of makeup, shorter finger nails without obnoxious bright colors will likely cause the good men to notice and the alphas to hesitate in ‘using up’ such beauty. The peace and glow of a woman after prayer or a woman really striving toward God shows up in the way she carries herself. Cads often do have a code of conduct to not ruin such a woman. Furthermore, she is not easy and it would take a larger investment of his time than he typically is willing to give. So in this way, she can attract quality men without flaunting herself and still look good while at the same time protecting herself.

The middle way woman attracts a better quality man because that man sees all of her character, including her comfortable confidence in her sexuality, since she neither flaunts nor disguises. Sometimes this kind of woman will later change her style of dress to be like the woman concerned with modesty. That is disconcerting to her man. He wants to be proud of his wife and show her off a bit. If she does not want to be eye candy for him sometimes – and not just in private – this can lead to disinterest from him and insecurity in her, which causes their connection to become more distant and usually a woman reacts by holding on to him and pulling him back with her claws. Oh, if she would just draw him back with her wiles, by planting some irresistible private intimate images in his mind.

A better approach is for her to do the opposite of most women; when out with him, she can dress a bit more revealing; she can find out what he would like to see and do that for him. The attention of the world is on the two of them and the focus is more diffused. They will see her in context with him; he is there to protect her. When this is done right, she is noticed as a beautiful woman, and people look at him and think, “Lucky guy.” Men live for this feeling – it affirms his masculinity. The focus is no longer on her; it is redirected to him. She feels good, because he feels good and also because this makes her feel more attractive, thus increasing her confidence. She will pick up on the admiration others have for her man and delight that such a man is her man.

Emotions are contagious. In a relationship the two are often feeling the same things. It is good to remember this, because this is the way to fix things. Being willing to do things like this for your man encourages him to be open about what he wants from you, and the more you show yourself willing to please him, the more the positive emotions will overwhelm the negative ones. This isn’t to say you are a doormat, but that you show yourself willing to please. In the modern world, this will set you apart from the average woman, as will dressing nicely but not slutty and carrying yourself with poise and confidence.